Fisheries Committee on Oct. 7th, 2022

[Dr. Arran McPherson]

It's the chair of the individual CSAS processes who is then responsible for ensuring that the conflict of interest policies are respected throughout the process.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Thank you.

Dr. Nemer also mentioned the science integrity policy introduced to DFO within the past few years. Who within DFO is responsible for ensuring the science integrity policy is being implemented and exercised as intended?

[Dr. Arran McPherson]

The deputy minister is responsible for the overall application of DFO's science integrity policy, and our ombudsperson is the person responsible for dealing with any allegations of breaches of the policy.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

We've heard through the process of this study that the CSAS process is sometimes sidelined or sidetracked. Decisions are made, but the actual science information that was considered in the process is not made public, sometimes until years afterwards. Can you think of any circumstances in which DFO should refuse to share with the Canadian public scientific documents, reports or assessments such as the B.C. steelhead recovery potential assessment?

[Dr. Arran McPherson]

The recovery potential assessment for steelhead is actually published. It was published subsequent to the actual meeting.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

The science documents in that CSAS process have not been made public.

[Dr. Arran McPherson]

Working papers that are developed are for discussion at the CSAS meeting and form the basis for the science advice. They are discussed, deliberated and the conclusions are then codified in the science advisory report that comes on our website, and that was published.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Thank you, but it seems that the whole process is then overseen by DFO. There have certainly been questions drawn around the integrity of that process, because those papers and that evidence are not made public. In some cases it is years afterwards before it is being scrutinized or criticized outside of what happened within the confidential CSAS process. Why would those papers not be made public?

[Dr. Arran McPherson]

Again, I'll repeat that the outcome of the peer-review process, which is the advice to inform decision-making, is a science advisory report or a science response that appears on our website after the conclusion of the meeting, and that is the formal advice to inform decision-makers. There are many steps in the process to formulate that advice. It needs to be as robust as possible, and it needs to comply with the outcome of the peer-review process itself. That appears on our website.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Thank you.

I have one very short question for Ms. Reid if I have time.

Is there any independent oversight or reviews such as an independent third-party audit that would examine whether DFO was actually abiding by its established policies and frameworks?

[Rebecca Reid, Regional Director General, Pacific Region, Department of Fisheries and Oceans]

For clarification, are you talking about the science integrity policy?

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

DFO is responsible for ensuring policies and frameworks are properly deployed and adhered to, but is there any independent oversight that would look at whether DFO is actually abiding by those policies?

[Rebecca Reid]

If you're referring to the science review process, the process itself is public. There are external participants.

I'm not sure I'm quite understanding your question. I apologize.

[Mel Arnold, Conservative, North Okanagan—Shuswap, BC]

Okay, I'll go on to another question, then.

To Ms. Murdoch, is it appropriate for DFO to provide transparency and scientific reasons when closures such as the pacific salmon strategy initiative closures were announced?

[Sarah Murdoch, Senior Director, Pacific Salmon Strategy Transformation, Department of Fisheries and Oceans]

Definitely. Both leading up to key decisions such as that, as well as in following those decisions, there's extensive engagement done with the key stakeholders and key individuals impacted, as well as information provided out regarding the decision.

With regard to the closures in particular, the team of my colleague on the line, Mr. Neil Davis, actually did extensive engagement, particularly with the commercial and indigenous fishery sectors, before those announcements and decisions were made.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

Thank you, Mr. Arnold. Your time has gone a little bit over.

We'll now go to Mr. Hardie for six minutes or less, please.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The interest we've had in DFO science on the west coast was really driven by the Discovery Islands process, and the advice that was given to the minister that aquaculture in that area posed only a minimal risk. There were questions about the methodology, but there were also questions about material that wasn't included simply because there was no consensus among the players about the conclusions the DFO scientists actually reached. There's a perception that this consensus model, if you can call it that, is contaminating the information that informs decisions. As well, there's also a perception that information in those reports is being somehow massaged by DFO before it gets to the minister.

Can you comment on that?

[Dr. Arran McPherson]

I'll offer a few comments on that.

First, I'll just maybe clarify that our policy on consensus appears on our departmental website. We define “consensus” as “absence of evidence-based opposition”. It's not enough to disagree. There needs to be evidence that's brought forward to support the point of view that's being made at the meeting itself. However, to your point about opposing views, there's also, at the discretion of the chair, the ability in our policies to make note of perspectives or issues that did not arrive at consensus. That isn't at odds with the policies we currently have. I agree that it's something we could make use of more often.

To the point you made around massaging information, I'd like to challenge that interpretation and say that it's very important we look at peer-reviewed information as it becomes available. In places where a field of study is new and emerging, it's more likely we'll have areas of healthy debate, a different point of view, and that makes it very important that we go back and revisit that information and monitor new papers that are being published. It makes it very important that we have a very diverse perspective of experts around the table. As things change, as new papers are published and subjected to peer review, we'll revisit the advice we've given to inform decision-making.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Thank you for that.

Ms. Reid, now knowing what you know, if you had a chance to redo the work that went into the information for the minister on the Discovery Islands issue with aquaculture, would things have been done differently now?

[Rebecca Reid]

Our job was to provide advice to the minister and, from a science perspective, give her the information that was generated through the risk assessments that were completed. I'm fully satisfied we did that properly. The minister took that information and made decisions, and I think that was a very appropriate process.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

There would be many who would say that it wasn't good. It did not pass the sniff test of a lot of people out at the coast. Perception is reality to a lot of people. Of course, when that happens, it damages the credibility of your organization. That is something you're still working through, I'm afraid.

The whole issue of climate change, of course, raises up situations like we've seen with hurricane Fiona. In terms of the work DFO is doing, the science work, the ocean science work that it's doing, are you trying to keep up with, or even stay ahead of, analysis of climate change and how it is changing the characteristics of the ocean and of the fish species?

Mr. Burns, perhaps you could comment on that, or Ms. McPherson.

[Dr. Arran McPherson]

I'll start, if that's all right.

Very much so climate change is affecting our oceans and our aquatic ecosystems across Canada. That really speaks to the importance of our ocean monitoring, because that's really the starting place for our climate change projections, our models and the type of information we use to project what species' vulnerabilities may exist in different parts of Canada's oceans.

We have an incredibly long-time series of ocean data. We work with countries around the world as well as autonomous instrumentation to ensure that we're able to collect information that then can be used to drive modelling approaches to project how the sea level might rise, how that would affect small craft harbours and coastal infrastructure, or how that might affect species' vulnerabilities. We actually bring some of this information together in our annual state of the ocean report that we make public every year, and we change from ocean to ocean every year, to highlight some of the key risks associated with climate change and other ocean changes and how it might affect Canadians.

Adam, did you want to add anything?

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

Thank you for that.

Do I have time, Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ken McDonald]

You have about 15 seconds, so I don't think you'll get another question in.

[Ken Hardie, Liberal, Fleetwood—Port Kells, BC]

I'll just make a comment.

There's also a perception out there that the effort and resources put into ocean studies is not balanced well with the fisheries side of things and that the fisheries side of things is left wanting. Perhaps you can work in a response to that later on.

Thank you.